The ‘Planning for Quality’ Paradox of Proactivity:
Rethinking the Widespread Merits of Proactive Employees
L.M. Elfrink (10001666)
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business Department: HRM-OB
MSc. Business Administration - Leadership and Management Track Master Thesis - Final Draft
First Supervisor: mw. I. Wolsink, MSc. Second Supervisor: mw. dr. W. van Eerde Word count: 9217
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Linda Elfrink, who declares to take full responsibility for
the contents of this document: ‘I declare that the text and the work presented in this
document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.’ The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Proactive work behavior is often presumed to play an important role in influencing employees’ individual performance. Therefore, the need to grasp the mechanisms through which various proactive constructs lead to improved performance becomes critical. By means of a quantitative study on 85 teams (two employees and one supervisor), covering a wide range of Dutch organizations, sectors and functions, the current study examines how proactive trait and behavior affect employee performance. This study aimed to (1) examine the indirect effect of proactive personality on performance through voice quality and (2) explore the conditional effect of planning tendency on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. Results showed that trait-proactive employees indeed enhance their individual performance evaluations by voicing highly original and useful ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions. In addition, we found that extensive (proactive) planning appears to be a serious threat to employee’s ability to voice high quality ideas and suggestions, leading us to reconsider the prevailing positive view of the planning component of proactive behavior. These findings furthermore contribute to the current understanding of proactivity in that we have established a link between effective proactive behavior and performance, and serve as a foundation for the further development of proactivity theory and managerial decision-making.
Introduction
“There are three kinds of people in this world: those who make things happen, those who
watch what happens, and those who wonder what happened.” ~ George Bernard Shaw
People are the capital of the 21st century. Organizations are therefore increasingly recognizing individual performance of employees as important to firm success (Wright, Dunford & Snell, 2001). Perspectives on what entails high performance have however changed tremendously. Due to today’s highly dynamic and competitive business environment, organizations rely on employees who ‘make things happen’ in order to promote creativity, innovation and change (Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006; Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010). Organizations now demand employees that are prepared to go the extra mile, as opposed to employees who are just taking orders and accomplishing their job duties. Employees who make things happen take proactive initiative to bring about change for their selves, but also for their teams and their organization.
Given that proactive employees facilitate both personal and organizational success, scholars are interested in studying what proactive people actually do. According to Seibert, Kraimer and Crant (2001), scholars and practitioners need to develop a better understanding of how proactive individuals achieve higher levels of performance. Prior research on employee traits shows that proactive people perform their jobs better than less proactive people because they tend to actively create circumstances in which they can excel, develop proactive skills and anticipate potential problems (Crant, 2000; Seibert, Crant & Kraimer, 1999; Thomas et al., 2010). However, it still remains unclear what concrete mediating behaviors exist that link proactive personality with performance, especially concerning the effectives of proactive behavior. One such a mediator could be voice quality.
Employee voice behavior is an informal, proactive way of constructively communicating information about work-related issues (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). It is
argued that groups and organizations perform better when employees share their ideas and concerns (Detert, Burris & Harrison, 2013), stressing the importance of voice behavior for organizations. While the extant literature predominantly measures the frequency of employee voice behavior, it leaves the actual usefulness and originality of those communicated ideas largely unattended. Scholars such as Morrison (2011) call for further investigation on the content of voice: ‘it is in my belief that one of the most pressing needs in the voice area is to focus more on the type of message that is being, or could be, conveyed via voice’ (p. 397). Especially with regard to the extent that supervisors value voice, the effectiveness of employees’ voice might outweigh frequency (Crant et al., 2011). Accordingly, Wolsink, Den Hartog, Beschak and Sligte (2015) introduced the terms voice quantity and voice quality, which we utilize in the current study. Following these authors, we assume that voice quality is an essential feature of proactive employees’ route to individual top performance.
Whereas the proactivity literature mostly focuses on traits or behavior (e.g. Bateman & Crant, 1993), it generally does not investigate traits and behavioral proactivity together. Consequently, there are concerns about the segmented nature of the proactivity literature (e.g. Grant & Ashford, 2008). The current study answers to this call for more integration by simultaneously focusing on both proactive trait and behavior.
Interestingly, a paradox arises when considering the relationships among these various proactive constructs. Given that proactive behavior is anticipated and proactive people plan for change, planning is considered part of the proactive behavior process (Grant & Ashford, 2008). While trait-proactive employees are also likely to be planners and planning has shown to positively influence employee performance (e.g. Thomas et al., 2010), something unexpected happens in relation to the quality of employee voice. The extent to which employees are able to voice ideas that are useful and original depends upon their creative ability (Wolsink et al., 2015). However, people who plan too much are less likely to generate
creative ideas because they generally purposeful strive for goal-achievement, avoid-risk taking and are less motivated to seek new opportunities (Sung & Choi, 2009). Therefore, it is acceptable that proactive employees with a high tendency to plan block their flexibility to communicate original and useful ideas that can help the organization improve. Hence, planning tendency might decrease voice quality. Further, proactive personality might only increase voice quality, if employees are not too strict in planning. So, on the one hand we assume that planning is beneficial: proactive employees plan more and perform their jobs more effectively. On the other hand however, we assume that planning is harmful because extensive planning jeopardizes the quality of proactive people’s voice, and thus the effectiveness of their proactive behavior, and in turn their performance evaluations.
The purpose of this study is threefold. This study aims to contribute to the literature on proactive behavior by (1) identifying a novel mediator (voice quality) in the proactive personality-performance link, (2) working towards more integration in the proactivity literature by incorporating multiple proactive constructs in one research model (proactive personality, planning tendency and voice quality) and (3) challenging the widespread merits of proactive employees by proposing the controversial role of employees tendency to plan in relation to voice quality. The following research question is therefore formulated: “To what
extent do employees’ proactive personalities affect their performance, and how do their planning tendency and voice behavior affect this relationship?”
Theoretical Framework
Why Employee Performance Matters for Organizations
Employee performance pertains to the ‘scalable actions, behavior and outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked to and contribute to organizational goals’ (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000, p. 216). So, it refers to employees’ behavior in order to bring
the organization forward. Scholars have long been concerned with studying the consequences of employee performance and especially with regard to the benefits for organizations. Research shows that well-performing employees are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs (Babin & Boles, 1996), which results in lower turnover rates, which in turn leads to financial payoffs for the organization (Cascio, 2006). So, individual performance benefits organizational performance.
Therefore, discovering factors that drive employee performance is relevant to practice. Generally, researchers aim to establish individual traits that predict whether employees engage in behaviors enhancing task, citizenship and counterproductive performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). With regard to individual traits, for example, Barrick and Mount (1991) found that conscientiousness, characterized by high levels of persistence and need for achievement, is the best predictor of task performance. Employee behaviors that are identified as beneficial for performance are among others goal setting (Locke, Shaw, Saari & Latham, 1981) and proactivity (Crant, 2000). In particular, employees who engage in behavior that is of a proactive kind may bring about beneficial outcomes because proactive employees engage in behavior that is aimed at helping the organization improve.
The Merits of Proactive Employees
Proactive behavior refers to ‘taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo rather than passively adapting to present conditions’ (Crant, 2000, p. 436). An example of such behavior is when an employee proposes, without being asked to do so, a suggestion about how to improve the efficiency of a procedure to his or her supervisor for future purpose (voice behavior). This example illustrates the self-initiated, future and change-oriented nature of proactive behavior. Moreover, proactive behavior contrasts with both passive and reactive behavior because
employees are not just passive, reactive responding to organizational contexts, but deliberately planning and acting to influence their environments (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
In contrast, employee proactivity can also be seen as a personal disposition (trait), because people differ in the extent to which they are automatically, or across different situations, inclined to initiate and maintain actions that directly alter their environment. Proactive personality, as first introduced by Bateman and Crant (1993), refers to the ‘the stable dispositional tendency for individuals to control situational forces and actively incite change in their environments’ (Thomas et al., 2010, p. 276). Proactive people are characterized as always looking for opportunities, taking personal initiative and undertaking action until change is inclined (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Thus, proactive personality is the tendency of an individual to act proactive in several situations, whereas proactive behavior is an act that fundamentally everyone can show. Imagine the setting of a meeting, where there are mainly two types of people: those who always take initiative to speak up, and those who generally remain passive.
In general, proactivity is assumed to benefit the organization, however, there are some scholars who question the obvious benefits of proactive employees, by arguing for a ‘dark side of proactivity’. Bolino, Valcea and Harvey (2010) tap into the negative impact proactive employees might have on their colleagues that are less proactive. The authors argue that proactive behavior can be seen as a source of both employee stress and inter-employee tensions. In addition, Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) propose the extravert and domineering personalities of proactive employees may be harmful to their colleagues.So, there seem to be negative effects of the frequency of proactive behavior for both others as well as the self.
However, most scholars find strong support for positive effects of proactive trait and behavior for individuals and organizations. Importantly, Crant (2000) studies a wide array of proactive behaviors (e.g. socialization and issue selling) and emphasizes the valuable
consequences of these behaviors, such as satisfaction, performance and role clarity. Also, Frese and Fay (2001) show that personal initiative – a type of work behavior that is self-starting, proactive and persisting – leads to positive outcomes, because personal initiative enables individuals to actively deal with problems and apply active goals, plans and feedback. In addition, Thomas and colleagues (2010) identify multiple favorable outcomes of both proactive trait and behavior regarding individual well-being, organizational commitment and social skill development. With regard to trait in particular, multiple studies find support for positive effects of proactive personality on career success (Seibert et al., 2001; Fuller & Marler, 2009), satisfaction (Erdogan & Bauer, 2005), network building (Thompson, 2005), job performance (Crant, 1995) and charismatic leadership (Crant & Bateman, 2000).
In conclusion, even though there are some studies that indicate that sometimes, proactive behavior has negative consequences, the majority of research shows positive effects and provides evidence for the merits of proactive employees for organizations: but it also shows that perhaps frequency (when not accompanied by quality) might be detrimental.
How Proactive Personality Facilitates Performance
Employees who are trait-proactive might perform better for three main reasons. First, according to Thomas et al. (2010), employees with proactive personalities are likely to engage in frequent proactive behavior, and hence develop skills and behaviors that are beneficial for the organization, such as information seeking, resource gathering and socializing. Second, employees with proactive personalities are likely to be top performers because they are inclined to actively select and create situations that allow them to excel (Seibert et al., 1999; Thomas et al., 2010). Likewise, Crant (2000) reasons how proactive employees customize their environment in order for individual strengths to flourish and thereby enhance their individual performance. At last, employees with proactive tendencies
rigorously inspect their environment. By doing so, they are better able to anticipate potential problems and influence environmental changes (Seibert al., 1999). So, trait-proactive employees are inclined to engage in particular behaviors (e.g. environment customization), considered as proactive behavior. Because they actually help the organization by doing so, they are more likely to evoke positive reactions from their supervisors, and hence receive higher performance evaluations (Crant et al., 2011). Thus, in order for proactive personality to have a positive influence on performance, employees must perform proactive behavior.
Voice Behavior as a Type of Proactive Behavior
As mentioned earlier, voice behavior is an example of such proactive behavior. LePine and Van Dyne (1998) introduced the concept of voice behavior and refer to it as an informal, proactive way of constructively communicating information about work-related issues. The current study utilizes a definition of employee voice behavior that is consistent with the original authors, yet recently rephrased by Morrison (2014) as ‘informal and discretionary communication by an employee of ideas, suggestions, concerns, information and problems, or opinions about work-related issues to persons who might able to take appropriate action with the intent to bring about improvement or change’ (p. 174).
Moreover, employees who engage in voice behavior are showing extra-role behavior, given that proposing ideas and suggestions about work-related issues on a voluntary basis goes beyond basic job requirements (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). In addition, employee voice behavior can go in two directions, namely voice directed at employees’ colleagues (speaking out) and voice directed at employees’ supervisors (speaking up) (Liu, Zhu & Yang, 2010). The current study regards both speaking out and up as being part of an employees’ overall proactive voice behavior, providing a more reliable view of the behavior.
Why Focus on the Quality of Voice Behavior?
Current measures of employee voice behavior do not focus on the content of voice, but moreover focus on frequency of voice. When we reconsider the definition of employee voice behavior as it used in this study, it appears that voice is about appropriate action to bring about improvement and change (Morrison, 2014). This indicates that voice is not only about speaking up and out often, but more importantly about the effectiveness of the communicated ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions, because change should be brought about. For example, when an employee offers a suggestion for improving a particular work process, but fails to be effective in arguing how that idea is better than current procedures, change is unlikely to come about, and the voice behavior will not lead to higher performance ratings by the supervisor. Likewise, Crant et al. (2011) argue that supervisors might ‘weigh the usefulness or persuasiveness of voice more than the presence or frequency of voice’ (p. 286). Presumably, quality thus matters more than quantity.
Morrison (2011) states that ‘whether voice is good or bad for the collective, most likely depends on the specific message that is being conveyed and the response that is taken’ (p. 401). Although the importance of voice quality appears evident from this quote, few scholars have actually researched it. The study by Crant and colleagues (2011) is an exception, by considering the extent to which employee voice is actually useful. They refer to voice usefulness as ‘thoughtful and useful suggestions for constructive change’ (p. 289).
However, voice usefulness is not the only dimension that voice quality comprises of. A recent study by Wolsink et al. (2015) defines voice quality as both the originality and usefulness of employee voice. The latter refers to, what Crant et al. (2011) already pointed out, whether an voiced idea can be implemented, whether the problem is about an important issue or whether an opinion changes the discussion in a meaningful way (Wolsink et al., 2015). Voice originality pertains to whether the communicated information is new, insightful,
challenging and/or refreshing. So, we define voice quality as employees’ communicated ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions that are both original and useful.
Subsequently, scholars are interested in what precedes employees’ voice quality. Wolsink et al. (2015) argue that employees can arrive at high quality voice through cognitive and creative ability, because it enables them to create solutions and ideas to overcome certain work-related problems. Notably, voice quality and creativity are interrelated, but distinct constructs. Whereas creativity is mere about the production of novel and useful ideas, and hence the ability to come up with those ideas, voice quality is about communicating those ideas, and also entails voluntary signaling of pressing issues and proposing original opinions (Wolsink et al., 2015). Understanding which human mechanisms foster proactive behavior, such as voice quality, are important when researching under which conditions those desired behaviors are likely to occur.
In conclusion, it is important to focus on the quality of employee voice behavior, because if voiced ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions appear not to be both useful and original, those ideas are rather useless for organization to will thus not facilitate improvement and or change.
The Positive Effect of Proactive Personality and Voice Quality on Performance
Previous research shows that employees with proactive personalities are likely to engage in voice behavior in general (e.g. Morrison, 2014), because they actively seek for opportunities to improve their working conditions. Furthermore, proactive personalities often participate in organizational improvement initiatives, act as change agents and are inclined to show innovative behavior at work (Seibert et al., 2001). So, we expect proactive people to voice high quality ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions, because they intent to propose solutions for potential problems and bring about positive change in their environment.
Furthermore, research shows that employee behaviors involving aspects of helping enhance organizational effectiveness and is therefore valued by managers and organizations (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Moreover, Crant et al. (2011) demonstrate that proactive personality is positively related to supervisor’s perceived usefulness of voice. Proactive personalities strive to identify potential opportunities and problems, and actively propose solutions; therefore they are inclined to make useful suggestions to help the organizations to make optimal decisions. When proactive employees engage in voice behavior that is of high quality, they are better able of creating solutions and overcoming problems that will benefit the organization, and thus will receive higher performance ratings (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Proactive personalities engage in voicing to achieve targets, and thereby contribute to organizational effectiveness, therefore they will receive higher performance evaluations. Supervisors will regard low quality voice as discretionary communication that has no value for the organization and is incapable to bring about change.
However, there is also some evidence that supervisors do not appreciate all forms of employee voice behavior. For example, Grant, Parker and Collins (2009) found that supervisors are not likely to give employees high performance evaluations when the voiced ideas contain weak prosocial values and high levels of negative affect. Consequences of voice thus vary between employees due to the quality of their voice: some employees who speak up receive more favorable performance evaluations than others.
In conclusion, there is considerable evidence supporting the assumption that because proactive personalities put in effort to actively propose solutions to work-related issues, they voice high quality ideas, which contribute to the overall effectiveness of the organization, and therefore receiver higher performance evaluations by their supervisors. Accordingly, we posit our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Employees with high proactive personality are likely to communicate
original and useful ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions, and therefore are more likely to receive higher performance evaluations by their supervisors compared to employees with low proactive personality. The relationship between proactive personality and performance is thus fully mediated by voice quality.
The Importance of Planning for Performance
Besides voicing high quality ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions, other types of proactive behavior also appear important in relation to performance. One such behavior is planning. Grant and Ashford (2008) argue that proactive behavior depends upon whether employees anticipate, plan and undertake action directed towards the future, referring to planning as one of the core phases of the proactive behavior process. They define planning as ‘preparing in advance for a given task, project, activity, or action by outlining steps that link one’s anticipations and future goals to concrete actions and outcomes’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, p.10). In addition, Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte and Roe (2004) emphasize how planning behavior concerns decision-making about prioritizing tasks and dealing with potential distractions. Given its goal-oriented nature and proactive approach, planning is expected to both be related to proactive personality and employee performance.
Employees’ tendency to plan can indirectly influence their performance because individuals who are inclined to plan a lot feel that they are more in control of time, and therefore feel less anxious, more satisfied with their jobs and more productive than others (Claessens et al., 2004). The authors further argue that a direct effect between planning and performance also exists, because planning allows employees to organize their tasks in congruence with available resources and opportunities, helping them to accomplish their tasks as planned (Claessens et al., 2004). In conclusion, employees with a strong tendency to
plan are better able to allocate their energy more effectively, allowing them to optimize their goal achievement and hence performance. However, there might be a downside to rigorous planning as well: it hinders flexibility, and flexibility is necessary for creativity to flourish.
Contradicting Effects of Planning on the Proactive Personality - Voice Quality Link
As mentioned earlier, proactive employees’ creative idea generation plays in important role in the quality of their voice behavior. Within the creativity literature, a dual pathway to creative performance is proposed, holding that creativity can be both a function of cognitive flexibility and of persistence (De Dreu et al., 2008). First, creative performance can be achieved through enhanced cognitive flexibility, driven by free association and flexible thinking. We suggest that when employees show a strong tendency to plan, their creative resources and cognitive flexibility – one’s awareness of the available alternatives – are likely to be harmed, allowing them to become less able to create solutions on the fly and overcome problems (Wolsink et al., 2015), in turn reducing the likelihood to voice both original and useful ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions to others. Second, creativity can also be achieved through persistence and perseverance, resulting in focus and hence a large number of ideas and insights (De Dreu et al., 2008). So, while a strong tendency to plan is likely to be negative for proactive employees, for employees with low proactive personalities it might be positive, in that planning leads to a better distribution of attention and hence more focus.
Moreover, planning also decreases employee’s willingness to take risks, experiment and tolerance for ambiguity (George & Zhou, 2001; Sung & Choi, 2009). George and Zhou (2001) argue that by ‘conforming, controlling one’s impulses, following rules, and striving to achieve predetermined goals all may go against seeking to change the status quo and coming up with new and better ways of doing things (p.515)’. This indicates that when proactive employees are highly planful, their urge to follow the rules and control their impulses might
withhold them from actually challenging and going against the status quo. When employees withhold potentially useful information because they do not want to jeopardize the current situation, they are consequently also less likely to communicate original and useful ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions. So, a paradox arises: although planning tendency is both positively linked to performance and proactive personality, something controversial happens in its relation to the quality of proactive (voice) behavior.
In conclusion, we expect that extreme planning tendency, to the extent that it decreases flexibility, decreases the positive effect between proactive personality and employee voice quality. Employees’ tendency to plan harms their creative resources and cognitive flexibility, and reduces their willingness to take risk, and therefore, proactive employees are unable to come up with and/or communicate high quality ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions. Although a moderate amount of planning can be beneficial, too much planning jeopardizes the beneficial effects of proactive personality on the quality of voicing. In line with this, we posit the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Employees with high proactive personality achieve high(er) voice quality
when they show low levels of planning tendency. Employees that show an extensive tendency to plan might not achieve the same voice quality, even though they also have a proactive personality.
Method
Research Design
Data on employee performance, proactive personality, voice quality and planning tendency were collected in a cross-sectional study using online surveys (Qualtrics). In order to get a complete picture of voice quality, we also included supervisor and colleague ratings of voice quality. Although the surveys were self-administered by the respondents, a researcher was physically present to manage the procedure. Conceivably, this positively affected the research’ dropout rate and validity of the results (Saunders & Lewis, 2012).
Sample
The sample consisted of Dutch speaking teams working together on a daily basis within various organizations in the Netherlands. One team consisted of two employees and one supervisor. The respondents were sampled through the personal networks of the researchers (convenience sampling). In addition, multiple participating respondents introduced new teams to the study (snowball sampling).
The final sample consisted of 170 employees, corresponding to 85 teams, consisting of 79 female and 88 male (51.8%) employees. Employee ages ranged from 18 to 64 with an average of 32 years (M = 32.38; SD = 12.72). Employees reported working 28 hours per week on average (M = 28.41; SD = 12.25). Most of the employees in our sample reported working in the private sector (32.5%), followed by the retail sector (18.1%) and the non-profit sector (12.9%).
Procedure
In the period of January to March 2015, three master students of the University of Amsterdam conducted the research. When the researchers found teams willing to participate
in the study, they set a date to visit the organization and administer the surveys. The online surveys were distributed by e-mail to the respondents. All respondents were seated behind their own computer and left undisturbed. In case of questions, the researcher was always nearby to grant assistance. When the entire team completed the survey, respondents received a gift as a sign of gratefulness. Upon request, respondents received a management summary of the outcomes of the research.
Measurements
Performance (5 items; α = .82). The dependent variable, employee performance, is measured at supervisor level. This measurement level is chosen because it is the most commonly used source of job performance ratings used in social sciences and supervisory ratings appear to have higher inter-rater reliability than for example peer or self-ratings (Viswesvaran, Ones & Schmidt, 1996). The performance evaluation by the supervisor is measured using 5 items (α = .82) adapted from Ashford and Black (1996). The measure includes both elements of task and citizenship performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). An example item of the task performance aspect is: ‘The achievement of work goals’. For the citizenship performance, an example item is: ‘His/her ability to work in a team’. The items were measured by asking the supervisor to grade the employee on a scale from 1 to 10, according to their most recent job evaluation in comparison to their colleagues. A high score indicates that the supervisor believed the employee’s behavior contributed to organizational goals.
Proactive Personality (6 items; α = .84). The independent variable, proactive personality, is measured at employee level, using a 6-item scale (α = .84) adapted from Bateman and Crant (1993). An example item is: ‘I am always looking for new ways to improve my way of working’. The items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging
from (1) ‘not applicable at’ all to (7) ‘entirely applicable’. A high score means that the employee believed he or she has a stable tendency to actively incite change in his or her environment.
Voice Quality (20 items; α = .96). The mediating variable, voice quality, is measured at both supervisor and colleague level, using 20 items (α = .96) adapted from Wolsink and colleagues (2015), which focused on the usefulness and originality of proposed ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions. An example item of the usefulness aspect is: ‘The ideas of my employee/colleague are easy to implement in practice’. For the originality aspect, an example item is: ‘My employee/colleague comes up with original solutions for problems’. The items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘not applicable at all’ to (7) ‘entirely applicable’. A high score indicates that both colleagues and supervisor regard the ideas voiced by the employee as original and useful.
Planning Tendency (6 items; α = .79). The moderating variable, employees’ tendency to plan, was measured at employee level, initially using 11 items (α = .73) adapted from Patton, Stanford and Barrat (1995). After conducting a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), 6 items remained. The PCA showed that planning tendency is composed of three components: ‘planfulness’ (6 items; α = .79), ‘impulsiveness’ (3 items; α = .54) and ‘flexibility’ (2 items, α = .56). Based on both statistical and theoretical considerations, we chose only to use the planfulness component in our measure of planning tendency (see
Appendix 2 for a detailed discussion of the PCA). First, impulsiveness and flexibility only
explain a small amount of the variance in planning tendency (R2 < 15%) and both reliabilities are not acceptable (α < .7). Second, we expect different levels of one’s tendency to plan to have an effect on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. Although both impulsiveness and flexibility are important aspects of planning, they are unable to measure the actual tendency to plan (closest to behavior), in which we are interested, because
they only reflect the ease of decision-making (impulsiveness) and overall adaptability (flexibility).
Moreover, the reliability of the planfulness component could be increased by dropping one item (α = .81). However, this item reflects an important aspect of planning (future orientation), and as the reliability is acceptable (α = .79), we did not delete the item. An example item of the final measurement is: ‘I plan work activities carefully’. The items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from (1) ‘not applicable at all’ to (7) ‘entirely applicable’. A high score indicates that the employee has the propensity to prepare tasks and activities in advance by linking future goals to concrete outcomes, and therefore exerts high levels of planning tendency.
Analyses and Predictions
To perform statistical analysis on the collected data, IBM’s SPSS Statistics version 21 was used. We conducted regression-based path analyses, using Hayes’ (2012) Process Macro for SPSS. First, we tested the mediation effect of voice quality on the relationship between proactive personality and performance. Following, we tested the moderation effect of planning tendency on the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. We tested both models using bootstrap samples with 1000 interactions and bias corrected confidence intervals at a 95% confidence level.
Mediation Analysis. We predicted a direct positive effect of employees’ proactive
personality on their performance. In other words, we expected to find that employees with high proactive personalities would receive higher performance evaluations by supervisors. Furthermore, we predicted a stronger indirect positive effect of employees’ proactive personality on their performance, mediated by their voice quality. In other words, we
expected to find that employees with high proactive personality will voice both useful and original ideas, and therefore receive higher performance evaluations (H1).
Moderation Analysis. We predicted a direct positive effect of employees’ proactive
personality on their voice quality. In other words, we expected to find that employees with proactive personalities would voice ideas high in quality. Furthermore, we predicted a negative interaction effect between employees’ proactive personalities and their tendency to plan on voice quality (H2). This means that we expected to find that employees with high proactive personalities and with low tendency to plan would voice the highest quality ideas. However, when these employees exert higher levels of planning tendency, the quality of their voice decreases. So, proactive personality predicts voice quality only for low levels of planning tendency.
Results
Pre-Analysis
Out of 172 participants, 2 cases were deleted due to incomplete data (N = 170). Additional missing values were dealt with by list wise deletion (singular analysis of the cases without any missing data in any variable; e.g. Graham, 2009). Following, scale reliabilities were examined. Reliability analysis indicated that all scale measures proved to be reliable, with Cronbach’s α coefficients larger than .70 (Cronbach’s αPerformance = .82; Cronbach’s
αProactive Personality = .84; Cronbach’s αVoice Quality = .96; Cronbach’s αPlanning Tendency = .79) (Field, 2013). Scale reliabilities could not be significantly improved by deleting single items.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Descriptives, correlations and Cronbach’s α coefficients are exhibited in Table 1. Employees in the sample received notable high performance evaluations by their supervisors (M = 7.69). This indicates that on average, employees in the sample perform relatively well. Furthermore, employees indicate moderate levels of proactive personality (M = 4.67), voice quality (M = 4.47) and planning tendency (M = 4.45).
Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) are calculated in order to determine the strength of the relationships between the variables and therefore provide interesting understandings toward the research’s hypotheses. In line with our first hypothesis, results show a positive correlation between proactive personality and voice quality (r = .18, p < .05). This indicates that employees with proactive personalities might also propose ideas and suggestions that are both original and useful than employees who are not trait-proactive.
As also expected in our first hypothesis, the results show a strong positive correlation between voice quality and performance (r = .50, p < .01). This shows that employees that voice high quality ideas and suggestions also receive high performance evaluations by their
supervisors. Moreover, we found a weak positive correlation between proactive personality and planning tendency (r = .20, p < .05). This finding was also in line with our expectations given that planning is a particular type of proactive work behavior, which proactive personality is likely to elicit.
Surprisingly, we found no correlation between proactive personality and performance (r = .05, ns). This indicates that proactive employees do not receive better performance ratings than non-proactive, or passive and reactive employees. This does further indicate that the proactive personality-performance relations are dependent upon a mediator, namely quality.
Table 1: Descriptives, Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha on the Diagonal
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.Performance (DV) 7.69 .96 (.82)
2.Proactive Personality (IV) 4.67 .91 .05 (.84)
3.Voice Quality (MeV) 4.47 .88 .50** .18* (.96)
4. Planning Tendency (MoV) 4.45 1.05 .10 .26** .06 (.79)
5. Employee Gender (CV) 1.47 .50 -.02 .04 .01 .20* -
6.Age 32.38 12.72 -.09 .02 -.08 .03 .13 -
7. Hours per Week 28.41 12.25 -.09 .02 .06 -.03 -.09 .32** -
Note. N = 170. Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p <. 01. Employee gender coding: 1 = male; 2 = female. DV = dependent variable. IV = independent
Hypothesis Testing
Mediation Model
In order to test the proposed full mediation effect of employees’ voice quality on the relationship between proactive personality and performance, we performed the regression-based path analysis Process (Hayes, 2012), examining a model for simple mediation (Model 4). Results are presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Figure 4.
Consistent with our first hypothesis, our results (Table 2, Model 2) show a significant relationship between proactive personality and voice quality (β = .18, t = 2.37, p < .05, R2 = .03, 95% CI: .03, .33). This finding indicates that as expected, employees with a proactive personality engage in voicing high quality ideas and suggestions.
Surprisingly, there is no direct effect of proactive personality on performance (β = -.05, t = -.72, ns, 95% CI: -.19, .09) (Table 2, Model 1). So, based on these results we cannot claim that employees with proactive personalities receiver higher performance evaluations by their supervisors.
With regard to the expected mediating effect, bootstrap results (Table 3, Model 3) demonstrate that proactive personality positively affects performance through voice quality, with an indirect effect of .10 (95% CI: .03, .21). Moreover, as already confirmed, the direct effect (-.05) of proactive personality on performance is not significant (95% CI: -.19, .09). The total effect (.05) is also not significant (95% CI: -.12, .21). Although both the direct effect and total effect of proactive personality on performance are not significant, the significant indirect effect of proactive personality on performance through voice quality suggests that proactive personality does affect performance ratings, but only through voice quality. Consequently, we accept our first hypothesis, which proposed a full mediation effect of employees’ voice quality on the relationship between proactive personality and performance. A pathway model, including the direct and indirect effect(s), is depicted in Figure 3.
Table 2: Process Analysis
Model 1 Model 2
Dependent Variable Performance Voice Quality
Coefficient (β) SE t Coefficient (β) SE t Constant 7.45** .40 19.15 3.64** .36 10.20 Proactive Personality .47 .08 .57 .18* .08 2.37 R2 .00 .03
Note. N = 165. Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p <. 01.
Table 3: Process Analysis – Mediation Model
Model 3
Dependent Variable Performance
Effect SE LLCI ULCI t
Indirect effect (ab) .10 .46 .03 .21 -
Direct effect (c’) -.05 .07 -.19 .09 -.72
Total effect (c’+ ab) .05 .08 -.12 .21 .57
Note. N = 165.
Moderation Model
To test whether the positive effect between proactive personality and voice quality is moderated by planning tendency (H2), the same regression-based path analysis using Process is conducted, examining simple moderation (Model 1). The aim is to understand under which conditions of planning tendency the positive effect of proactive personality on voice quality exists. Results show that gender seems to affect employees’ tendency to plan (r = .20, p < .05) (Table 1), therefore we will control for gender in our analysis. Results are presented in
Table 4, Table 5 and Figure 5.
As seen from Table 4 (Model 4), there appears to be a significant negative interaction effect between proactive personality and planning tendency on the outcome variable voice quality (β = -.16, t = -2.44, p < .05, R2 = .07), when controlled for gender. Moreover, the model is able to explain 7 percent of the variance in voice quality. The increase in explained variance in voice quality due to the interaction with planning is 4 percent (R2change = .04).
To visualize the interaction, we plotted the two-way interaction effect following Dawson (2014), using the unstandardized regression coefficients, means and standard deviations of the independent variable, proactive personality, and the moderator, planning tendency (Figure 5). We observe that employees achieve the highest level of voice quality when they have a strong proactive personality and exercise low levels of planning tendency. This finding in line with our second hypothesis, which proposed that employees with high proactive personalities are more likely to voice high quality ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions when they do not show high planning tendency, because exercising high planning tendency hinders them to come up with useful and original ideas, suggestions problems and opinions due to a decrease in flexibility. However, we also observe that a lack of planning tendency is harmful for employees who also lack a proactive personality. Planning is thus not always a bad thing. Overall, it seems that planning employees exercise more consistent levels
of voice quality, regardless of whether they have a proactive disposition, compared to employees who are less planful.
Table 4: Process Analysis – Moderation Model
Model 4
Dependent Variable Voice Quality
Coefficient (β) SE t LLCI ULCI
Constant .12 1.49 .08 -2.83 3.07 Planning Tendency .80 .33 2.42* .15 1.45 Proactive Personality .90 .31 2.91** .29 1.51 Proactive Personality * Planning Tendency -.16 .07 -2.44** -.29 -.03 Gender .00 .14 .04 -.26 .28
Note. N = 167. Statistical significance: *p < .05; **p <. 01.
Figure 5: Interaction Plot
3 4 5
Low Proactive Personality High Proactive Personality
V oice Qu ali ty Low Planning Tendency High Planning Tendency
In order to probe the interaction effect more accurately, we examine the simple slopes (Table 5). For low (3.40) and average (4.45) levels of planning tendency, there is a significant relationship between proactive personality and voice quality. However, when planning tendency is high (5.50), the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality disappears. Subsequently, we use Johnson-Neyman technique to yield values among the entire continuum of planning tendency to more precisely probe the interactions and determine at which exact level of planning tendency the effect of proactive personality on voice quality becomes non-significant (Hayes & Matthes, 2009). We find that from levels of planning above 4.67, proactive personality and voice quality are unrelated. This suggests that for particularly high levels of planning tendency, proactive personality does not seem to increase voice quality. When we look at the effect strengths, we find that the effect is strongest for low values of planning tendency (.35). Employees who plan little arrive at high voice quality when they are also trait-proactive. Or, when employees are highly proactive it is better for them not to plan extensively, or to keep their planning flexible.
So, based on these findings, we accept our second hypothesis. At high values of planning tendency, there is no relationship between proactive personality and voice quality, Table 5: Process Analysis – Conditional Effects of Proactive Personality at Values of the Moderator
Dependent Variable Voice Quality
Planning Tendency Effect of Proactive Personality on Voice Quality
SE LLCI ULCI
3.40 (-1 SD) .35 .11 .14 .56
4.45 (M) .18 .08 .03 .33
4.67 (cut off point) .14 .08 0.01 .29
5.50 (+1 SD) .01 .10 -.19 .21
while there is a significant relationship for low and moderate values of planning tendency. Hence, planning tendency seems to decrease the positive effect of a high proactive personality, as predicted. At low levels of employees’ tendency to plan, the positive effect of proactive personality is even stronger.
Discussion
In line with previous research (e.g. Fuller & Marler, 2009; Thomas, et al., 2010; Thompson, 2005;), this study found positive relationships between multiple proactive constructs and employee performance. First, we found that voice quality fully mediated the relationship between proactive personality and performance. This indicates that employees with proactive traits can only achieve higher performance evaluations when they actually display effective proactive behavior on the work floor, in this case, by communicating useful and original ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions to their supervisors and colleagues (voice quality). Secondly, we found that not all types of proactive behavior reap beneficial outcomes. Although scholars usually refer to planning as an important aspect of the process of proactive behavior and associate it with proactive personality (Grant & Ashford, 2008), we established that employees’ drastic propensity to plan has a risky side effect that appears to harm the quality of employee voice. We will now discuss these key findings in more detail.
First with regard to the direct relationships among the proactive constructs, as expected, we found that proactive personality positively predicted voice quality. This suggests that employees with a strong proactive trait are more likely to communicate useful and original ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions to colleagues and supervisors compared to non-proactive employees. In addition, trait-proactive employees were found to be planners, given that planning allows them to develop plans for how they will act to implement their ideas, which is in line with theories about proactive behavior (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Second, with regard to the direct relationships between the proactive constructs and employee performance, it can be concluded that only voice quality was a strong predictor of performance. This result indicates that employees that communicate useful and original ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions to others receive higher performance evaluations by their supervisors than employees who do not. Supervisors seem to appreciate and value it when employees speak both up and out (Liu et al., 2010) and, in line with LePine and Van Dyne (1998), they consider this behavior as doing something extra for the organization, acting beyond formal job requirements, and therefore believe they contribute to organizational effectiveness as long as their voice is qualitative (e.g. Thompson, 2005). In turn, they seem to reward this extra-role behavior by granting more favorable performance ratings.
Further, we found that the effect of proactive personality on performance is entirely mediated through voice quality (H1). It thus seems that trait-proactive employees can only affect performance evaluations by being effectively proactive, such as communicating ideas and suggestions that matter to the organization in terms of originality and usefulness. Because proactive employees are inclined to propose solutions to work-related issues and actively seek to bring about positive change in their surroundings, they communicate useful and original ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions that contribute to organizational effectiveness, and hence leads to favorable performance judgments. These results validate the indirect effect that proactive personality has on performance and are in line with previous research. For example, Seibert and colleagues (2001) identified multiple mediators, such as showing innovative behavior and taking career initiatives. Surprisingly, they did not find voice (quantity) to be a mediator of the proactive personality and career success relationship. Moreover, voice (quantity) appeared to be negatively related so some outcomes such as promotion. In contrast, this study did find significant relationships and mere positive outcomes of voice behavior. We assume that our construct of voice quality actually resembles innovative behavior more than
voice quantity, because both voice quality and innovation focus on identifying problems or opportunities and the generation of original ideas (Seibert et al., 2001). Therefore, we accept that their results actually are consistent with our key finding of voice quality as mediator.
The absence of the direct effect of proactive personality on employee performance in the mediated model is unexpected. Based on prior research, it would be reasonable to find at least some relationship between proactive personality and performance. For example, Thomas et al. (2010) and Belschak and Den Hartog (2010) found positive relationships between proactive personality and individual performance, although the effect sizes were weak, ranging from .15 to .32. Furthermore, although Thompson (2005) found that the inclusion of a direct path between proactive personality and performance proved to be insignificant, he did find a positive zero-order correlation between the two constructs. So, taking proactive employees’ helping character, their ability to anticipate problems and capability to customize their environment allowing them to excel in mind, we assume that their stable tendency to act proactive over time, is unlikely to get completely unnoticed by their supervisors and hence of no influence on their performance evaluation. A possible explanation for the absence of the correlation between proactive personality and performance could be found in the different measurement levels we used. Performance, as well as voice quality, included measures of supervisors, whereas proactive personality was only self-rated. It might be possible that the constructs measured from the same source naturally correlated with each other, as opposed to different sources. However, we assume this did not significantly affect our results and therefore conclude that our proposed theoretical framework is legitimate: proactive personality only has an effect on individual performance via effective proactive behavior.
Currently, there is discussion going on in the literature about whether or not one can truly speak of an indirect effect when the direct effect is not statistically significant. Some authors argue that due to the relatively low power of the total and direct effect tests compared
to the indirect effect test, full mediation could occur, while there is no evidence that X causes Y (Kenny & Judd, 2014). However, because we used the bias corrected bootstrapping method it is not likely that the low power pitfall affected our results. Bearing this in mind, we conclude that there is a strong indication of full mediation present.
Having described the relationships between proactive personality, voice quality and performance, this study also provided insight into the controversial role of planning with respect to proactivity at work. In line with our expectations, we found that employees’ tendency to plan moderated the relationship between proactive personality and voice quality (H2). Although prior research suggests that planning is generally beneficial in work settings (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Claessens et al., 2004), our results show that proactive employees’ strong tendency to plan withholds them from arriving at high levels of voice quality. We argued that strong planning tendencies may serve to inhibit creative performance and cognitive flexibility that are required for trait-proactive employees to generate creative ideas and insights, and hence high levels of voice quality (Wolsink et al., 2015). Extreme planners, nearly obsessive compulsive, inspect their environment less carefully, becomes less aware of the available alternatives, end up in tunnel vision, and might not be not be effectively proactive because they disable themselves from anticipation. Alternatively, it could be possible that people with strong planning tendencies do not like to extensively communicate with others in the first place, because they simply prefer to focus on completing their tasks as scheduled without having to share their ideas and concerns with others and being disrupted. So, perhaps, proactive employees who also have the propensity to plan a lot restrain themselves to voice high quality, because they do not want to take the time that is required to communicate ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions that are highly original and useful.
The results of our study give us reasons to reconsider the role of planning in proactive behavior. We propose that for employees to be the most effectively proactive, they must act in
an improvisational way, instead of displaying the tendency to extremely plan. With regard to the proactive behavior process, Grant and Ashford (2008) comment that planning ‘represents a critical phase of the proactive behavior process, as it enables employees to connect what they anticipate psychologically with concrete behavior steps and plan’ (p.11). So, proactive planning functions as a rational process by which visions are transformed into behaviors. The positive perspective on the assets of planning might not hold true anymore in today’s complex and competitive business environment. First, as jobs get increasingly complex, it might get more difficult for people to plan their work, because they cannot really foresee what will happen. Second, organizations of today demand employees that make things happen, but from time to time, do so in a less rigid and more improvisational way. Anticipatory planning namely prohibits individuals’ ability to innovate and come up with original and useful ideas, and it are precisely those ideas that organizations need to survive (Vera & Cossan, 2005). According to Sawyer (2006), successful innovation emerges from collaborative improvisation. As planning is detrimental for improvisation, and hence organizational success, we should reconsider the role of planning in the proactive process, and consider it as a serious threat to the effectiveness of proactive behavior.
Study Limitations
As with all research, the findings of the current study are prone to some limitations. The first issue pertains to the composition of the sample. We mainly relied on convenience sampling (non-probability), which is generally subject to bias as the respondents in our sample were selected because they were most easy to obtain. As a result, our sample comprises of relatively young workers (average of 32 years old), while the average working age in the Netherlands is ten years higher (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2014). However, with regard to the average working hours per week (28 hours in sample, 29 hours in
population), the distribution of gender (53% male in sample, 55% male in population) and a balanced variety in sectors (e.g. retail, private and non-profit), we can presume our sample is a reasonable representation of the population.
Second, it is possible that perception and/or social desirability bias has led the supervisors to rate the performance of their employees presumably higher than their actual performance. We found that employees in our sample score relatively high on their performance ratings, with an average score of nearly 8 out of 10. Possibly, managers were categorizing their employees by means of the good employee-bad employee syndrome (Thompson, 2005), which may have resulted in a substantial amount of extremely good performers. Moreover, it could also be true that managers did not want to give their employees negative evaluations, although anonymity of the research was stressed multiple times. However, we found that our mediation model also holds when we only include the colleague-ratings of voice quality, and we therefore conclude no bias has occurred in our supervisor-ratings.
A final limitation resides in the fact that we cannot make causal inferences due to our cross-sectional research design (Rindfleisch, Malter, Ganesan & Moorman, 2008). We were able to give our relationships direction based on theoretical assumptions, however, if we strictly look at our statistics, we cannot make claims about whether (for example) proactive voice quality results in performance or the other way around.
Suggestions for Future Research
As discussed, we propose to reconsider the role of planning in proactive behavior. One possible area of research that might be interesting to look at is research on affective experiences. Previous research established that positive activating moods are related to proactive planning and behavior in general (Bindl, Parker, Totterdel & Hagger-Johnson,
2011). Also, the actual process of planning is often more emotional than rational, as proactive behavior concerns risk associated with the self (Grant & Ashford, 2008). As our measure of planning focused solely on employees’ propensity to plan their work, and hence the rational side of planning, it would be interesting to explore the emotional position of planning in relation to proactive personality and the ability to be effectively proactive. Perhaps, when employees plan while letting themselves guide by their positive moods, they still can enhance their effectiveness, in that they feel energized to act proactive and allow improvisation over rationality. Additional research should clarify the meanings of affective experiences and moods for understanding the role of planning in proactive behavior.
In addition, future research may focus on investigating how voice quality affects inter-employee relationships. Following Belschak and Den Hartog (2010), it would be most likely that colleagues, as opposed to supervisors, are affected by voice behavior that is perceived as unethical, self-serving or causing harm. Based on our results, we cannot claim that voice quality is appreciated on the work floor in general, since our measure of performance only included supervisor ratings. Although managers might appreciate high-quality voice, less proactive employees might experience others’ highly proactive behavior as intimidating, as a threat to both the psychological safe work climate and their own status. It would be interesting to conduct research on various inter-employee variables such as co-operation, trust and conflict, as a consequence of voice quality. We suggest adopting qualitative research methods to gain a richer understanding of how employees perceive their colleague’s voicing behavior.
Practical Implications
The current study provides meaningful practical implications, both for individual employees and the larger organization. First, for employees, we strongly recommend employees to pursue high-quality voice behavior in order to realize potential performance
benefits. When employees speak up to their colleagues and supervisors and convey high-quality ideas, they are regarded as better performers in the workplace. In addition, the results emphasize the importance of developing proactive skills and behavior in order to be able to incite change in their environment. Importantly, employees must be judicious not to plan their work too rigorously, because it may harm their opportunities for creativity and cognitive flexibility and therefore prohibit them to communicate original and useful ideas, suggestions, problems and opinions.
Second, in order for organizations to exploit opportunities and take advantage of innovative ideas as a result from employee voice, management must provide their employees with the necessary space and opportunity to share their suggestions and concerns. Following self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), we advise organizations to grant their proactive employees with sufficient autonomy, as it facilitates proactive behavior via multiple cognitive-motivation states and provides opportunity to make suggestions about improvement (Parker et al., 2006). Moreover, employees should not feel reluctant to speak up, not afraid to propose an ‘out-of-the-box’ idea and should be left relatively bendable in their planning. Managers and supervisors need to leverage employee proactivity by fostering conditions that encourage and enable voice quality, for example by stimulating organizational climates of initiative (supporting a proactive, self-starting and persistent approach to work) and psychological safety (work environment where employees are safe to speak up without being rejected or punished) (Baer & Frese, 2003).
Contributions
The current study contributes to the state-of-the-art understanding of proactive constructs in two primary ways. First, it contributes to prior work attempting to establish mediating behaviors between the proactive personality-performance link (e.g. Seibert et al.,
2001). This study validates the existence of an indirect proactive trait-performance relationship across a wide variety of job types and sectors. Although previous research has established this link well before (e.g. Thomas et al., 2010), this is the first study that linked proactively personality to performance through voice quality, a new concept in the voice research area (Wolsink et al., 2015). Therefore, this study also contributes to Morrison’s (2011) call for investigation upon what type of messages people convey when they speak up, as opposed to how often people speak up.
Second, the current study contributes to more integration in the proactivity literature, as summoned by Thomas et al. (2010). We simultaneously examined multiple proactive constructs, by including both proactive trait (proactive personality) and proactive behaviors (voice quality and planning tendency) in our research model, and hence investigated multiple proactive constructs at once. Results suggest a controversy about the widespread merits of proactive employees. On the one hand, trait-proactive employees enhance the quality of their voice resulting in performance benefits. On the other hand however, proactive employees are also likely to be planners, but when they take planning to an extreme, they cannot arrive at top performance anymore because planning suppresses the quality of their voice.
Concluding Thoughts
Employees who make things happen are fundamental to organizational survival because they are the ones that can act as proactive change agents and incite change and innovation within their organizations. Our study sheds light on proactivity at work by underscoring the importance for employees with proactive-trait to display qualitative proactive behavior, such as communicating ideas that are useful and original, instead of merely being proactive often. In addition, we have shown that an interesting paradox arises with regard to the role of planning tendency within this relationship: if proactive employees
wish to maximize the quality of their voice behavior, they must not take planning too strictly, while planning is theoretically at the heart of the proactive process. Overall, we conclude that the effectiveness of employees’ proactive behavior (voice quality) is most important with regard to individual performance.
